I think so. With Obama in freefall in the polls, the Democrats have no choice

I know this is a troll thread, but whatever.

It would have been a better tactic to use during the primaries to get someone like Santorum and Gingrich nominated, making the general a cakewalk. It's too volatile to try that route in October. Now, if Obama were down by 5-7 points in Ohio...

I think there's a valid case within progressive politics to criticize Mormonism. It heavily involves itself with affecting the outcome in elections and policy, with a dedicated, effective group that actively attempts and has succeeded in some cases in implementing their agenda. Seeing as how their worldview is being brought into politics and seeing how it is pretty antithetical to progressive politics, I think it becomes a valid target. Mitt Romney, in turn, is definitely one of the biggest - if not the biggest - individual contributor to the Mormon Church, which then uses that money in part to fund their moral beliefs that just so happen to be shared in many aspect by Mitt Romney.

I think so. With Obama in freefall in the polls, the Democrats have no choice

I know this is a troll thread, but whatever.

It would have been a better tactic to use during the primaries to get someone like Santorum and Gingrich nominated, making the general a cakewalk. It's too volatile to try that route in October. Now, if Obama were down by 5-7 points in Ohio...

I think there's a valid case within progressive politics to criticize Mormonism. It heavily involves itself with affecting the outcome in elections and policy, with a dedicated, effective group that actively attempts and has succeeded in some cases in implementing their agenda. Seeing as how their worldview is being brought into politics and seeing how it is pretty antithetical to progressive politics, I think it becomes a valid target. Mitt Romney, in turn, is definitely one of the biggest - if not the biggest - individual contributor to the Mormon Church, which then uses that money in part to fund their moral beliefs that just so happen to be shared in many aspect by Mitt Romney.

I am disappointed that some one as reasonable as you could support attacking a man over his faith... I bet you would've been outraged has McCain gone after Rev Wright

It would have been a better tactic to use during the primaries to get someone like Santorum and Gingrich nominated, making the general a cakewalk. It's too volatile to try that route in October. Now, if Obama were down by 5-7 points in Ohio...

Absolutely not. The only way in which Democrats can go after Mitt Romney on religious matters is by showing behaviors either irrelevant to or contradictory to Mormon teachings.

Samuel Butler notwithstanding, the last refuge of a political scoundrel is religious bigotry. As a liberal I have no use for Mormon-bashing. Sure, the religion has some cranky beliefs... but so do some others.

How do we know that the Democratic frontrunner and eventual nominee for President in 2016 won't be Jewish? I think we know where that is going. It is bad enough that Republicans smear the President as a crypto-Muslim -- but at least that is either falsehood or irrelevancy.

As for the actual topic of the thread, no, the Obama campaign won't do that, because it's a stupid strategy. It'll hurt them more than it hurts the Romney campaign, because even if voters are wary of Romney, nobody likes religious bigotry.

And though I'm a Mormon leftist myself, even I know that the Romney campaign will play it as it really is; an attack on Mormonism by the secular left. In my opinion, the religious right will still be the greater threat to my faith, but "playing the Mormon card" will rightfully be seen as a direct attack by the secular left.

Besides, you can more easily attack Romney on his defiance of leftist economic teachings in the Book of Mormon; there are at least 10 verses which specifically mention rich people who ignore the plight of the poor and how they're sinners for not helping the poor. There's even a positive example of higher taxation helping the poor in the BoM. So you can just use the LDS scriptures itself to attack Romney, rather than attacking his religion to attack him.

And it's Romney who should be playing it. Not without cause, but let someone mention that he's a Mormon and then let him say, "Yes, I'm a Mormon." Get it out in the open, then dare the opponent to be a bigot about it. Just like he did, successfully, in the primaries.

Remember at the Values Voters Summit, when the pastor who introduced Rick Perry to the assembly told reporters that “born-again followers of Christ should always prefer a competent Christian” for the presidency and dismissed Mormonism as a pseudo-Christian cult, the fallout was rougher for him than for Romney. It turned out to be a blessing for Romney because it gave him a a chance to cry “bigotry” and it prompted many denunciations from prominent conservative politicians and activists. It forced Perry’s campaign on the defensive, didn't it.

Also, it's good for the country to help us get over our prejudices. At one time, folks were reluctant to elect women, Catholics, Jews, and black people. For the most part, we're past that sort of prejudice, but for whatever reason, about 20% of voters have consistently over the past 40 years have a bias against voting for Mormons. It's time to get over that, and Romney could prove helpful in that regard, even if he loses.

And it's Romney who should be playing it. Not without cause, but let someone mention that he's a Mormon and then let him say, "Yes, I'm a Mormon." Get it out in the open, then dare the opponent to be a bigot about it. Just like he did, successfully, in the primaries.

Remember at the Values Voters Summit, when the pastor who introduced Rick Perry to the assembly told reporters that “born-again followers of Christ should always prefer a competent Christian” for the presidency and dismissed Mormonism as a pseudo-Christian cult, the fallout was rougher for him than for Romney. It turned out to be a blessing for Romney because it gave him a a chance to cry “bigotry” and it prompted many denunciations from prominent conservative politicians and activists. It forced Perry’s campaign on the defensive, didn't it.

Also, it's good for the country to help us get over our prejudices. At one time, folks were reluctant to elect women, Catholics, Jews, and black people. For the most part, we're past that sort of prejudice, but for whatever reason, about 20% of voters have consistently over the past 40 years have a bias against voting for Mormons. It's time to get over that, and Romney could prove helpful in that regard, even if he loses.

I agree; I'd love a Democratic Mormon president, and though that's unlikely, Romney's one good point in this election for me is that he could potentially pave the way for a future leftist Mormon president, ala some kind of Mo Udall type.

I am disappointed that some one as reasonable as you could support attacking a man over his faith... I bet you would've been outraged has McCain gone after Rev Wright

It's not that I personally support going after random religions, but rather I am addressing it from a strategic point of campaigning. If they were going to do such a thing, then it should have been done in primary season so as to avoid as much potential backlash as possible.

I do, however, think that if a church or religious group engages in overt and official political action, funneling their money and manpower into campaigns in order to affect the result (most notably, Proposition 8 in California), then that group could hypothetically be viewed as more of a political entity than a religious one. It is at that point - and particularly when you consider that the religious/moral elements are being woven into the political dialogue - that criticism of the values and actions of the Mormon Church can be legitimately discussed in political terms.

It would have been a better tactic to use during the primaries to get someone like Santorum and Gingrich nominated, making the general a cakewalk. It's too volatile to try that route in October. Now, if Obama were down by 5-7 points in Ohio...

Obama wanted the weaker challenger - Romney.

Santorum would not have been able to debate Obama - he'd be trailing by 5-6 points right now. Gingrich would have defeated Obama in debates, but I think his favorability numbers would be so low that it wouldn't be near enough for him to catch up.

Romney was the best candidate in the field - he was the only candidate who could at least somewhat please the base while also attract enough moderates. Huntsman would have been great with moderates, but the base would have been furious.

I am disappointed that some one as reasonable as you could support attacking a man over his faith... I bet you would've been outraged has McCain gone after Rev Wright

It's not that I personally support going after random religions, but rather I am addressing it from a strategic point of campaigning. If they were going to do such a thing, then it should have been done in primary season so as to avoid as much potential backlash as possible.

I do, however, think that if a church or religious group engages in overt and official political action, funneling their money and manpower into campaigns in order to affect the result (most notably, Proposition 8 in California), then that group could hypothetically be viewed as more of a political entity than a religious one. It is at that point - and particularly when you consider that the religious/moral elements are being woven into the political dialogue - that criticism of the values and actions of the Mormon Church can be legitimately discussed in political terms.

Even though the Mormons aren't on your side at the moment, they may not be so antithetical to progressives in the long run. After all their church does believe in a constant revelation such that their beliefs could change dramatically at some point in the future with very little ramifications. It's much easier for Mormonism to adapt than most Christian sects with a less fluid concept of morality.

I am disappointed that some one as reasonable as you could support attacking a man over his faith... I bet you would've been outraged has McCain gone after Rev Wright

It's not that I personally support going after random religions, but rather I am addressing it from a strategic point of campaigning. If they were going to do such a thing, then it should have been done in primary season so as to avoid as much potential backlash as possible.

I do, however, think that if a church or religious group engages in overt and official political action, funneling their money and manpower into campaigns in order to affect the result (most notably, Proposition 8 in California), then that group could hypothetically be viewed as more of a political entity than a religious one. It is at that point - and particularly when you consider that the religious/moral elements are being woven into the political dialogue - that criticism of the values and actions of the Mormon Church can be legitimately discussed in political terms.

Even though the Mormons aren't on your side at the moment, they may not be so antithetical to progressives in the long run. After all their church does believe in a constant revelation such that their beliefs could change dramatically at some point in the future with very little ramifications. It's much easier for Mormonism to adapt than most Christian sects with a less fluid concept of morality.

Would that really affect their voting behaviors, though? I don't think a change in position on a social issue or two (assuming you were referring to that) would necessarily sway Mormons to the left politically in any significant way.